Orissa High Court
Kshyana Prabha Naik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 18 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.12301 OF 2024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India
Kshyana Prabha Naik .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : M/s.Satya Ranjan Pati,
D. Pati, S.S.S. Swain &
L. Behura, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K. Jee,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & judgment : 18.08.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.
Petitioner-widow, having suffered rejection of her application
for compassionate appointment only on the ground of claim being
belated, vide Letter No. 1672 dated 12.04.2024, is grieving before
the Writ Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that
his client has satisfied all the conditions for compassionate
appointment, her husband having died in harness on 14.01.2018;
she had applied for appointment on 10.11.2020, of course bit
belatedly; however, Sub-Rule (11) of Rule-9 of the Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (in short, '1990
Rules') provides for condonation of delay; the answering OP in the
given circumstances ought to have condoned delay on its own and
offered compassionate appointment. This having not happened,
he submits, interference of this Court is eminently warranted.
3. Learned AGA for the OPs resists the petition with equal
vehemence contending that the policy for compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to
public service should be from open market and on merit; therefore,
the aspiring appointees on compassionate ground ought to comply
with the conditions for such appointment; one such condition is
limitation period of one year reckoned from the death of employee
vide Rule 9(6) of the 1990 Rules; in the instant case, his widow
has made application long after one year of death and she has not
offered any explanation for such delay. So contending, he seeks
dismissal of the petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
4.1. The employee died in harness on 14.01.2018 leaving
petitioner as widow; she had applied for compassionate
appointment on 10.11.2020, whereas the normal one year period
expired on 13.01.2019, as per Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 9 of 1990
Rules. However, Sub-Rule (11) of Rule 9, which provides for
condonation of delay, reads as under:
"(11) Notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed in Sub-
rule (6), the delay in submission of application for appointment
under these rules may be condoned by Government in
concerned Administrative Department by an order to the effect
that the applicant had sufficient cause for not submitting the
application within such period."
The subject rules are founded on the idea of difficulty which the
family of a Government servant dying in harness, would encounter
in the saga of life. Therefore, the provisions of such a statutory
policy, as expressed in the form of Rules, have to be construed
with due sympathy & compassion. After all, compassion is not
unconstitutional value. In matters like this, Portia's knife in
Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice cannot be made use of, ours
being a Model State, and not East India Company nor a Mughal
Regime of the bygone era. Compassion is a virtue; all scriptures
whichever be the faith, preach to practise it. Sympathy &
compassion have to animate decisions of the authorities consistent
with the requirement of Rule position. That having not happened,
there is error apparent on the face of impugned order warranting
its invalidation.
4.2. Rule 9(11), which is reproduced above, apparently provides
for entertaining belated claims for compassionate appointment.
Added, Rule 16(1) provides for not only relaxing any provision of
these Rules, but dispensing with too. The same has the following
text:
"16(1) The State Government where satisfied that the
operation of all or any provisions of these rules causes
undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense
with or relax the provisions to such extent as it may
consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just
and equitable manner."
It is difficult to countenance the contention of learned AGA that a
separate application has to be made by the claimant seeking
condonation of delay. One cannot oblivious to the fact that a poor
widow was before the authorities, with avalanche of difficulties
when bread winner of the family dies in harness that too abruptly. It
is ideal if some explanation is offered in the very application made
for compassionate appointment. In any event, a belated claim
cannot be turned down without giving an opportunity to the
applicant to explain the delay, if any, more particularly when all
other conditions are complied with like the one required in distress
certificate or the like. That would accord with the principles of
natural justice too. Even otherwise, the authorities should on their
own ascertain from the applicant by holding a summery inquiry as
to the existence of facts & circumstances that resulted into claim
being made belatedly. We hasten to add that the analogy of
Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 that arguably requires a separate
application being filed for condonation of delay, is impertinent.
4.3. When death of the bread winner of a family happens, it is like
a bolt from the blue. It brings a train of problems, one of them
being financial distress. As already mentioned above, the policy
providing for compassionate appointment is founded on
humanitarian values. No claimant for such appointment would
stand benefited by brooking delay, has to be kept in view. It does
not behove a gigantic entity like the State to reject a claim of the
kind only on the technical ground of limitation, when the Rules
themselves provide for condonation of delay and also dispensing
with rigor of the Rule concerned.
4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in
placing reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election
Commission; AIR 1978 SC 851 in support of his contention that
his client's application for compassionate appointment having been
negatived only on the ground of delay, there should be a positive
direction for granting the claim, instead of remitting the matter for
consideration afresh. He is also right in pointing out that the State
has not filed any counter nor does it dispute otherwise entitlement
of the petitioner to such appointment. Added to this, the decision
on claim for compassionate appointment has to be taken at the
earliest & on war footing. Therefore, remand would not do justice.
On the contrary, it may generate one more legal battle.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed; a
Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the Office Letter No. 2622 dated
12.04.2024 issued by the District Education Officer, Kalahandi-
Opposite Party No.3; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the
jurisdictional Opposite Parties to condone the delay & allow the
application of the petitioner by issuing appointment order on
compassionate ground and report compliance to the Registrar
General of this Court within an out limit of eight (8) weeks
reckoned from this day.
Default of delay shall be viewed seriously in the next level of
legal proceedings, if the petitioner is driven to take up.
It is open to the answer opposite parties to solicit any
information or documents from the side of petitioner or from such
other Department, as required for taking a decision on the subject
application swiftly; however, in that guise delay shall not be
brooked.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all
concerned.
Dixit Krishna Shripad,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 18th day of August, 2025/Basu
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 21-Aug-2025 14:42:45
